I'll let General Vance talk about the rules of engagement, but just to answer your question more directly about the mission itself, as the Prime Minister stated early on, we want to be a responsible coalition partner and make a meaningful contribution. That's why we took the time to make sure we had the right intelligence, and to speak with our coalition partners so that when we looked at refocusing, it wouldn't be strictly from a military perspective but also from a diplomacy and a development perspective.
The military solution will buy you time to fix the real problem, but that political solution is just as important, if not more so, for the long-term stability of the country and that region. But before we get to that, we need to make sure the Iraqi security forces have the right training and the right structure in place so they can not only retake their cities but actually hold them as well, because with ISIL they weren't able to hold the cities in the first place, and that's why we are in this situation right now.
The critical piece at this time is making sure that we train not only enough Iraqi security force members but also the right ethnic groups to go retake some of those cities. In the buildup to that though, we require the right intelligence. It's been over a year since the intervention. The enemy will learn quite rapidly from how we operate, and because of that, our intelligence also needs to get better. This is one reason we're making sure to provide the right type of intelligence capability that will provide the theatre-wide perspective and be a greater asset for the coalition commander but also, in particular for our troops in the north, to protect our forces, anticipate some of the future threats, and also contribute to the coalition targeting.
I'll let General Vance answer the question on rules of engagement.